| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 01:59 pm: | 
|
I support the President in his partial fulfillment of General McCrystal's troop request.
I very much doubt that President Obama wants to go down in history as the man who lost the war. As long as congress doesn't pull a Vietnam on him (kill funding for the effort and in support of our allies), I expect we and our coalition allies will once again achieve success. So whether Obama is responding to the situation begrudgingly or not is no matter to me, as long as he stays the course. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 02:03 pm: |
|
"The day Bush decided to go into Iraq full force and let a tiny few try and find the man who was the master mind in killing thousands of Americans here on our own soil..."
It was Bush's fault that our military allowed bin laden to escape tora bora into Pakistan? Maybe so.
What are the facts that you base your accusation on and your characterization that the Bush admin "let a tiny few try and find (bin laden)?
Specifically, how many coalition forces remained in Afghanistan; how many were transferred to Iraq?
Partisan rhetoric is unhelpful. What are the facts? |
Paw
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 02:13 pm: |
|
Blake if you would truly understand...The fact remains if Bush would have gone after Bin Ladden first, Iraq would never been the problem it became...The idiot Bush wanted what his father F'ed up without a doubt...What was his reason for going in?...WOMD and found nothing!!! All the while Bin Ladden is still free to terrorize the world...Can you get that threw your think skull? |
Paw
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 02:21 pm: |
|
"What are the facts that you base your accusation on and your characterization that the Bush admin "let a tiny few try and find (bin laden)?"
Do not take tiny literally, tiny as compared to the amount he sent to Iraq...The point is Bin Ladden should have come first where ever he went Bush should have followed...That should have been priority one. He did things backwards. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 02:40 pm: |
|
"WOMD and found nothing!!! "
That is not an honest characterization. But it is also irrelevant and hindsight. The fact is that everyone believed that the mass-murdering terrorist regime in Iraq was indeed concealing weapons of mass-murder.
Try reading the report from the post war investigation into the issue.
Again, no President, after 9/11, would ever have allowed the mass-murdering, terrorist, warmongering regime of Iraq to remain in power.
"All the while Bin Ladden is still free to terrorize the world...Can you get that threw your think skull?"
Really? Bin Laden is "free to terrorize the world"? That seems wildly inaccurate to me. Seems to me he's stuck in the wilderness cowering for his life. Any time any al qaeda shows himself, he winds up dead.
But I could be wrong. Do tell. Who has bin laden terrorized in America or elsewhere since 9/11? Do you figure that if bin laden had been taken out, no more terrorist attacks by al qaeda and the like would occur in the world? Do you imagine that if he dies, all al qaeda will cease to exist?
I too am frustrated that we've not brought to justice the evil bastard. However, it is beyond myopic to believe that the one man poses some kind of magic bullet end to the war in which we are engaged against islamist-fascism. The big picture is far more important and in that regard, I am encouraged.
Who after 9/11 imagined that America would go this long without another attack, well up till the recent Fort Hood attack anyway, and I'm not sure that can be put on al qaeda or not.
"Do not take tiny literally, tiny as compared to the amount he sent to Iraq...The point is Bin Ladden should have come first where ever he went Bush should have followed...That should have been priority one. He did things backwards."
Not having been privy to the security briefings, how can you possibly make any such statement? That is ridiculously irresponsible partisan rhetoric.
And if what you say has any validity, then whey did the overwhelming majority of congress support and authorize our effort against the mass-murdering terrorist regime in Iraq?
Stop trying to rewrite history to fit your ridiculous partisan bias. It is dishonest and dishonorable.
I support Obama's effort in Afghanistan, but I don't view it as some kind of catastrophe that it has to happen. Pakistan is now hot on the warpath against al qaeda in their nation; it's looking like they will soon be squeezed and defeated.
I saw on the news the other day that we've killed a number of their top leaders in Pakistan.
As far as taking your words literally, I didn't. Exaggeration is the next closes thing to a lie. If you want to make an honest point, stick to facts.
I still don't know the facts. If you don't then how can you make such wild characterizations?
When did bin laden escape Tora Bora? Was that before or after the division was transferred to Iraq?
(Message edited by blake on December 05, 2009) |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 02:51 pm: |
|
"The fact remains if Bush would have gone after Bin Ladden first"
We absolutely did go after bin laden first! We boofed the job. Not everything in war falls at our feet as planned/hoped. Hindsight is useless.
The truth is that we invaded and ran off the taliban and their al qaeda friends within three weeks along with the able alliance of brave Afghanis opposed to the taliban.
It was over a year and a half later that we invaded Iraq. Bin laden was long since hiding in Pakistan. Those are the facts.
Invasion of Afghanistan: October 7, 2001
Iraq invasion: March 20, 2003 |
Xb12xmike
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 03:55 pm: |
|
Actually, he (Bush) did things almost perfectly. At the time 2001 we had very little training for the Guerrilla battle about to unfold in Iraq,.. let alone the training needed to truly pursue osama in the terrain of Afghanistan. It would have been a huge waste of life, time and resources to move all the troops and machinery and train more troops to Liberate Afghanistan. But... maybe your right, maybe we should have just up and left IRAQ and plopped all our under-trained semi-experienced troops in Afghanistan. Leaving Saddam to continue his weapons development. It's almost ten years later what do you think would have happened in the mideast if we did not liberate Iraq??
(just fyi, it started in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, then 12 years of U.N resolutions, no_fly_zones, scuds and anti-aircraft missiles and continued Weapon_of_mass_destruction development. Everything you need to know about the LIBERATION OF IRAQ is here: Iraq Special Weapons News)
Now is the best time to go after taliban, al-Qaeda and find osama and at last it is finally gonna happen. Kudos to Obama for speeding up the troop buildup. |
Xb12xmike
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 04:02 pm: |
|
Iraq UN Security Council Resolutions
Iraq WMD Delivery Systems
DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 04:33 pm: |
|
It was in the battle of Tora Bora that Bin Laden got away from our military. That was in Dec. of 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tora_bora I don't like Wikipedia for a lot of things, but I'm willing to accept what they have on such a basic fact.
Could someone pleas explain to me how going into Iraq caused OBL to manage to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora? Did this involve some sort of temporal disturbance or is it just the result of heavy self medication?
On the original topic, I have to admit that I'm very torn on what should be done. I do hope that BO made a good choice in his decisions. He did take months to make his decision however and came up very short of the number of troops from what was asked for. He hope to make up for the short fall with troop from our allies, but failed to spend those months negotiating troops from them and came to the teleprompter with nothing to show from our allies. That is nothing like what he promised he could deliver during his campaign speeches. He didn't even put forth the effort. I call bad on BO for that.
Also announcing that we will begin pulling out in 18 months (the new troops won't even be in for 7 months) does nothing good for us. It does give our enemies hope for holding on during the 11 month surge.
I sincerely hope for the best out of this, but have my doubts. I do have a nephew scheduled to go there in February of 2010 and another nephew who will most likely be heading there later in the year. I have very real concerns over BO's decisions. |
Gaesati
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 01:21 am: |
|
BO stipulated a pullout IF circumstances warranted it.
The allies are increasing their commitment, check the increases in british troop numbers and the increases in Australian support personnel over and above the troop commitment. However, the US is still doing the"heavy lifting " with respect to fighting the war on the ground. Fighting Global terrorism is a global responsibility. It is saddening that it is mostly young Americans who are doing the bleeding. Obama's speeches have driven this home and Australian newspaper articles refrer to it. It is also sad that the burden of paying for the war has fallen on a US that has had to borrow the money to pay for it. Maybe it is time for the rest of the world to ante up instead of letting the US shoulder burdens that it shouldn't have to carry. If Obama's approach achieves anything I hope it achieves greater involvement by other countries. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 04:15 am: |
|
Funny how totus supporters have been against the Iraq was and now their guy had a chance for a full withdrawal and didnt do it. There are a slew of clips showing the most left politicians stating saddam was a threat that has WMD's.
We should probably pull out of both wars now though because the leadership is weak and everyone in our military and the world knows it. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 08:54 am: |
|
BO stipulated a pullout IF circumstances warranted it.
There was no "IF". That's why McCain blasted him on this point. |
|
